Thank you Arsene for being informative and making us aware of the
discussion.
I totally agree with Mawaki. The way WEF has been singled out and chosen as
an org to cooperate with (whatever that means) is totally unknown and
arbitrary. If they want to collaborate they need to collaborate equally
with every interested stakeholder group and as Mawaki said have a
governance framework for such collaboration.
As to the Internet for all project, I can see that IGF is a member of its
steering committee. I am surprised! IGF is not an entity nor an
organization it is a forum and it cannot be represented by its "chair" on
this group (unless she is representing all of us through MAG, which I
doubt). and IGF activities at WEF are unclear. Making opening ceremony
speech is not a collaboration.
Internet for All looks like a project established in 2016 (but I might be
wrong, could not find more info in my cursory review). IGF at least until
2013-2014 always tried to be neutral and treat all the requests for being
engaged with IGF equally which even meant, no collaboration at all with a
single entity. WEF can be a donor, it can come to the forum and make a
speech, it can submit a workshop and work with the rest of the community
but I don't see any valid reason for special treatment.
Farzaneh
On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 2:59 AM Mawaki Chango <governance at lists.riseup.net>
wrote:
> Whatever the comprehensive and definitive answer may be to that question
> or to any further enquiry on this matter, I would simply suggest that, if
> IGF were to go that road, it should avoid doing this on a case by case
> basis.
>> It should first draw up a general framework to govern such collaborations
> (spelling out clearly the requirements, including about the Who, the Why
> (for what purpose), under What conditions, the types and levels of
> collaboration, etc.) A collaboration with WEF may then come within the
> scope of that framework, just as any other collaboration initiative from
> any other community or stakeholder group (including the ones with no big
> money.)
>> I think that's pretty much about 2 cts.
>> Mawaki
>> On Wed, Feb 13, 2019, 6:55 AM Arsène Tungali <governance at lists.riseup.net> wrote:
>>> Dear all,
>>>> As we keep on reflecting.
>>>> Here is a question I asked Lynn (Chair of the MAG) on the MAG public list:
>>>> “Who requested this collaboration in the first place? Is it the WEF
>> that came to the IG or the other way around? If it is the IGF that
>> went on seeking WEF's collaboration, was it done through the IGF
>> Secretariat or was it a personal initiative of the MAG Chair?”
>>>> And here is her answer:
>>>> “Re your questions below, the WEF and the IGF have been collaborating
>> on various projects for at least 5 years, initially, I believe,
>> through the Internet For All project where the (then Chair) and
>> Secretariat followed the work of the WEF, and the Internet For All
>> project was made known to the NRIs for voluntary participation where
>> interests and projects intersected. There may have been other
>> projects at that early point as well (NetMundial Initiative? though
>> that didn’t get too far within the IGF); if important we can follow up
>> with the secretariat or MAG members from that time, as my recollection
>> is certainly not complete nor definitive.
>>>> This recent offer of collaboration recognized the complementary nature
>> of our communities, and of course any collaboration would be voluntary
>> - on all parties.
>>>> In my personal opinion, I would always opt for engaging with any
>> community that has a stake in the Internet (or applications, services,
>> etc.) to help ensure they were getting the most representative view
>> possible. It was in that light that this Collaboration Discussion
>> Document was produced. It was introduced at the MAG Open Consultation
>> meeting under the Agenda item: 'Related IG activities', but not
>> discussed in any detail, mainly due to time. It will be scheduled for
>> a future MAG meeting once the more pressing items having to do with
>> the Call for Workshops is well advanced.
>>>> Hope this helps clarify,
>>>> Best,
>> Lynn”
>>>> Let me know what are your thoughts and if this helpful or not.
>>>> Regards,
>> Arsene
>>>>>>>> 2019-02-12 12:39 UTC+02:00, Akinremi Peter Taiwo <compsoftnet at gmail.com>:
>> > Digging down the history path is a good thing. It's also true that WEF
>> is
>> > opposite of openness and transparency, but how long should we continue
>> in
>> > SILO. It's a question that needs to be truly answered by everyone of us.
>> > Please don't get me wrong, I am not advocating for WEF, but exploring
>> > collaborative opportunities that can influence stakeholders to do the
>> right
>> > thing in a right way. There might be the motive behind this
>> collaboration,
>> > no doubt, but I believe collaborative efforts can lead to desired
>> outcomes.
>> > Maybe we could suggest the best way to go about it to the MAG.
>> >
>> > @Parminder, I just realized that you were the one I met during the
>> > eCommerce Week. We should have gone to the coffee joint :)
>> >
>> > Regards.
>> > Peter
>> >
>> > On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 8:33 PM <LB at lucabelli.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >> I agree almost entirely with Lee's 2 cents with one notable exception.
>> >>
>> >> While NetMundial Initiative miserably failed, the proposed
>> >> "collaboration"
>> >> between IGF and WEF will stay, once it is "approved" (I do not know by
>> >> whom, as the MAG is a mere programme committee to which the IGF mandate
>> >> does NOT give such authority, but this is another story)
>> >>
>> >> The WEF-NMI partnership miserably failed because NMI (itself created
>> >> basically by WEF and one other person) failed. On the contrary, the IGF
>> >> will stay for at least the rest of the current mandate. Should any sort
>> >> of
>> >> cooperation be "approved", this will also last for - at least - the
>> rest
>> >> of
>> >> the mandate. Given the current approval rate of WEF, this may not be an
>> >> optimal choice...
>> >>
>> >> IMHO, every IGF participant is totally free to participate and work
>> with
>> >> the WEF but equating this kind of personal engagement to othe fact that
>> >> "Collaboration
>> >> between the [IGF and WEF] is already underway" is a deliberate fallacy
>> >> that
>> >> sceptics may think only aims at present the institutional cooperation
>> >> between IGF and WEF as something already exisitng (which is not the
>> >> case).
>> >>
>> >> Furthermore, the same sceptics may also think that - as it happened at
>> >> the
>> >> time of the WEF-NMI fiasco - the proposed "collaboration" is
>> exclusively
>> >> in
>> >> the interest of the WEF and the person promoting the collaboration on
>> the
>> >> other side.
>> >>
>> >> Although one should aknowledge that at least, now, we are spared the
>> >> "mother of all bottom-up initiatives" rhetoric, it would be interesting
>> >> to
>> >> know why is the MAG chair proposing this "coperation" with WEF and not
>> >> with
>> >> other entitie. And on what basis is this kind of special cooperation
>> >> created knowing that the IGF mandate (clearly defined para 72 of the
>> >> Tunis
>> >> Agenda
>> >> https://www.itu.int/net/wsis/documents/doc_multi.asp?lang=en&id=2267|0>> )
>> >> does not mention such possibility? And most importantly, why is the MAG
>> >> (chair) self-attributing this new cooperation creation power rather
>> than
>> >> focusing on a the implementation of what the IGF mandate asks and that
>> >> whoudl propably give more visibility and credibility to the entite IGF
>> >> process i.e. "where appropriate, make recommendations." (see para 72.g
>> of
>> >> the Tunis Agenda)?
>> >>
>> >> If MAG members started to read the IGF mandate or the contributions
>> >> received during the IGF stock-taking consultations (or ideally both),
>> >> they
>> >> may find an ample range of ideas to strengthen the IGF other than WEF
>> >> vassalage.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> *Luca Belli*, PhD
>> >> Professor of Internet Governance and Regulation, FGV Rio de Janeiro Law
>> >> School
>> >> Chercheur Associé, Centre de Droit Public Comparé, Université Paris 2
>> >> www.internet-governance.fgv.br
>> >> @1lucabelli
>> >>
>> >>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> *CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE*
>> >> *This message, as well as any attached document, may contain
>> information
>> >> that is confidential and privileged and is intended only for the use of
>> >> the
>> >> addressee named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
>> >> hereby notified that any disclosure, copying or distribution of this
>> >> email
>> >> or attached documents, or taking any action in reliance on the contents
>> >> of
>> >> this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited and may be
>> >> unlawful.
>> >> Please contact the sender if you believe you have received this email
>> by
>> >> mistake.*
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --------- Original Message ---------
>> >> Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: [IGFmaglist] IGF - World Economic Forum
>> >> (WEF) Collaboration Discussion Document
>> >> From: "Lee W McKnight" <lmcknigh at syr.edu>
>> >> Date: 2/11/19 12:55 pm
>> >> To: "Michael J. Oghia" <mike.oghia at gmail.com>, "arsenebaguma at gmail.com"
>> <
>> >> arsenebaguma at gmail.com>, "governance" <governance at lists.riseup.net>
>> >>
>> >> My 2 cents,
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> As Parminder notes there is a history here we cannot pretend never
>> >> happened.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Still, being even more cynical than Parminder ( if that is possible ; )
>> >> there is a reason WEF is circling back around IGF now - billionaires
>> >> hoarding the world's wealth are not being treated as glamorously as
>> they
>> >> once were, and they don't like it.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> And - yes WEF (staffers & consultants) are quality folks and do produce
>> >> useful and interesting data and reports, some of which could be
>> >> fruitfully
>> >> input into IGF discussions.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> So I see it like this, a small wef collaboration as humble contributors
>> >> to
>> >> - coalitions - proposing workshop topics for future IGFs are welcome
>> >> like
>> >> anyone else. Which they can do their own PR around if they want, once
>> a
>> >> particular panel/topic is accepted by MAG, or a dynamic coalition of
>> >> mutual
>> >> interest does something interesting.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> But a prospective Big WEF collaboration with IGF to trade enhanced PR
>> for
>> >> IGF with our collective help glossing over my cynical point , is just a
>> >> cheap sell-out of the IGF mission. And will not be credible or
>> >> effective anyway given prior history, and current global inequality
>> >> trends
>> >> which WEF institutionally is stuck on wrong side of - without a change
>> in
>> >> its mission and approach, and which an IGF collaboration could not
>> gloss
>> >> over.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Maybe that's 3 cents, but to summarize, if WEFers can humble themselves
>> >> sufficiently to pitch in and help out through IGF, great. But a
>> >> Netmundial
>> >> v2.0 WEF/IGF thing will inevitably flop like 1.0 and not be worth the
>> >> bother, or taint.
>> >> ------------------------------
>> >> *From:* governance-request at lists.riseup.net <
>> >> governance-request at lists.riseup.net> on behalf of Arsène Tungali <
>> >> governance at lists.riseup.net>
>> >> *Sent:* Monday, February 11, 2019 10:25:36 AM
>> >> *To:* Michael J. Oghia
>> >> *Cc:* governance
>> >> *Subject:* Re: [governance] Fwd: [IGFmaglist] IGF - World Economic
>> Forum
>> >> (WEF) Collaboration Discussion Document
>> >>
>> >> Thanks, everyone for sharing your thoughts here, this thread is mostly
>> >> for your information as well as to see what members think about this
>> >> discussion on the MAG.
>> >>
>> >> My impression so far is that many of the reactions here are mostly
>> >> turning on the side of WHY the WEF?
>> >>
>> >> I would like to suggest us to also think on the "WHY NOT"? Is there
>> >> anything fundamental that is wrong with the WEF that would endanger
>> >> any possible collaboration with the IGF? Can we think on that
>> >> direction as well?
>> >>
>> >> Are there other organizations you feel would be problematic should
>> >> they seek any formal form of collaboration with the IGF?
>> >>
>> >> 2019-02-11 17:03 UTC+02:00, Michael J. Oghia <mike.oghia at gmail.com>:
>> >> > Hi Arsene,
>> >> >
>> >> > Thanks for sharing this with us. In line with what has already been
>> >> > said,
>> >> > the WEF and its networks are free to participate in any part of the
>> >> > IGF's
>> >> > work (intersessional activities, organising workshops, etc.). Thus, I
>> >> don't
>> >> > see why there needs to be any kind of formal arrangement – and this
>> >> > isn't
>> >> > with regards to Davos, by the way. I'm thinking here about the
>> reports
>> >> and
>> >> > such the WEF publishes. In general, I usually welcome calls for
>> closer
>> >> ties
>> >> > and collaboration; however, I think that if the WEF wants to
>> >> > collaborate
>> >> > more closely with the IGF, they should see how their expertise,
>> >> > contacts,
>> >> > and donor networks can better support the IGF's existing mechanisms
>> and
>> >> > infrastructure. Even looking at the recommendations, I don't see any
>> >> > that
>> >> > are not just as applicable to any other stakeholders already
>> >> participating
>> >> > in the IGF, so why make any special exception?
>> >> >
>> >> > Perhaps I'm naive, though.
>> >> >
>> >> > Best,
>> >> > -Michael
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 3:14 PM Arsène Tungali <
>> >> governance at lists.riseup.net>
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> Hi all,
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Meant to share this document here to have your thoughts about the
>> >> >> collaboration between the IGF and WEF that MAG Chair is pushing for.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I would like to hear your thoughts on the questions mentionned at
>> the
>> >> >> last page of the document.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Regards,
>> >> >> Arsene
>> >> >>
>> >> >> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> >> >> From: "Lynn St.Amour" <Lynn at internet-matters.org>
>> >> >> Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2019 15:32:46 -0500
>> >> >> Subject: [IGFmaglist] IGF - World Economic Forum (WEF) Collaboration
>> >> >> Discussion Document
>> >> >> To: IGF Maglist <Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org>
>> >> >> Cc: Derek O'Halloran <Derek.OHalloran at weforum.org>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Dear MAG members,
>> >> >>
>> >> >> please find below a document in support of a discussion on possible
>> >> >> ways to increase collaboration between the IGF community and the
>> World
>> >> >> Economic Forum (WEF). It builds on past collaborative efforts and
>> is
>> >> >> in support of Agenda item 4 in the IGF Open Consultation meeting:
>> >> >> "Updates from related Internet Governance initiatives and processes,
>> >> >> followed by open discussion on possible IGF 2019
>> >> >> activities/collaboration”.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Thank you to Derek O’Halloran and the WEF staff for their help
>> >> >> creating this document.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Best regards,
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Lynn
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> --
>> >> >> ------------------------
>> >> >> **Arsène Tungali* <http://about.me/ArseneTungali>*
>> >> >> Co-Founder & Executive Director, *Rudi international
>> >> >> <http://www.rudiinternational.org>*,
>> >> >> CEO,* Smart Services Sarl <https://www.smart-kitoko.com/>*,
>> >> >> Tel: +243 993810967 (DRC)
>> >> >> GPG: 523644A0
>> >> >>
>> >> >> 2015 Mandela Washington Fellow
>> >> >> <
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >>
>>http://tungali.blogspot.com/2015/06/selected-for-2015-mandela-washington.html>> >> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> (YALI) - ICANN GNSO Council Member
>> >> >> <https://gnso.icann.org/en/about/gnso-council.htm> Member. UN IGF
>> MAG
>> >> >> <https://www.un.org/press/en/2018/pi2247.doc.htm> Member
>> >> >> ---
>> >> >> To unsubscribe: <mailto:igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net>> >> <igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net>>
>> >> >> List help: <https://riseup.net/lists>
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> ------------------------
>> >> **Arsène Tungali* <http://about.me/ArseneTungali>*
>> >> Co-Founder & Executive Director, *Rudi international
>> >> <http://www.rudiinternational.org>*,
>> >> CEO,* Smart Services Sarl <https://www.smart-kitoko.com/>*,
>> >> Tel: +243 993810967 (DRC)
>> >> GPG: 523644A0
>> >>
>> >> 2015 Mandela Washington Fellow
>> >> <
>> >>
>> >>
>>http://tungali.blogspot.com/2015/06/selected-for-2015-mandela-washington.html>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> (YALI) - ICANN GNSO Council Member
>> >> <https://gnso.icann.org/en/about/gnso-council.htm> Member. UN IGF MAG
>> >> <https://www.un.org/press/en/2018/pi2247.doc.htm> Member
>> >> --- To unsubscribe: <mailto:igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net> List
>> help:
>> >> <
>> >> https://riseup.net/lists>
>> >>
>> >> ---
>> >> To unsubscribe: <mailto:igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net>
>> >> List help: <https://riseup.net/lists>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > <
>>https://about.me/petertaiwoakinremi?promo=email_sig&utm_source=product&utm_medium=email_sig&utm_campaign=gmail_api&utm_content=thumb>> >
>> > Peter Taiwo Akinremi
>> > about.me/petertaiwoakinremi
>> > <
>>https://about.me/petertaiwoakinremi?promo=email_sig&utm_source=product&utm_medium=email_sig&utm_campaign=gmail_api&utm_content=thumb>> >
>> >
>>>>>> --
>> ------------------------
>> **Arsène Tungali* <http://about.me/ArseneTungali>*
>> Co-Founder & Executive Director, *Rudi international
>> <http://www.rudiinternational.org>*,
>> CEO,* Smart Services Sarl <https://www.smart-kitoko.com/>*,
>> Tel: +243 993810967 (DRC)
>> GPG: 523644A0
>>>> 2015 Mandela Washington Fellow
>> <
>>>>http://tungali.blogspot.com/2015/06/selected-for-2015-mandela-washington.html>> >
>>>> (YALI) - ICANN GNSO Council Member
>> <https://gnso.icann.org/en/about/gnso-council.htm> Member. UN IGF MAG
>> <https://www.un.org/press/en/2018/pi2247.doc.htm> Member
>> ---
>> To unsubscribe: <mailto:igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net>
>> List help: <https://riseup.net/lists>
>>> ---
> To unsubscribe: <mailto:igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net>
> List help: <https://riseup.net/lists>
>-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20190213/0391d784/attachment.htm>